Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19

= July 19 =

== Category:XFL (2001) venues ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose Deleting :Category:XFL (2001) venues

:* Propose Deleting :Category:XFL (2020) venues

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE and WP:NONDEFINING

:The XFL (2001), ~~or Extreme Football League,~~ was a short-lived American football company and this category groups stadiums they played in from February 3, 2001 to April 21, 2001. (The 2020 version was even shorter, playing for 5 weeks before COVID19 hit and the league again folded.) All of the stadiums were pre-existing, not purpose built for either league. These seem like textbook examples of WP:OCVENUE. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The original :Category:XFL venues was made a parent, then deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_30#XFL_categories, then disambiguated, and of course it will be deleted again under WP:G6 after these two. – Fayenatic London 06:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep: WP:OCVENUE says {{tq|However, categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way for some or all of the year (such as :Category:National Basketball Association venues) may sometimes be appropriate.}} The 2001 version of the league ran a full season, and the 2020 version wrapped up its second (and first full-length) season in 2023, with a 2024 season expected. You could make a case that the 2001 league category encompassed too few games to warrant a category for its stadiums, but the active 2020 league has had many more games. (By the way, if you read the article, XFL does not stand for "Extreme Football League"...) Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep, per Eagles247. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete it is difficult to call it frequent when the initial XFL season only lasted a single season.--User:Namiba 22:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

:*{{re|Namiba}} What about the other league that has lasted more than 1.5 seasons so far, since that category is also up for discussion? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

::* It still does not make it a defining characteristic when a venue is used for this purpose for such a short portion of the history of the venue. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

::These stadiums are not defined by being XFL venues. They are defined by being the home stadiums of established NFL and/or NCAA teams.--User:Namiba 14:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

::* Beyond just the length of time, we've previously deleted categories for secondary uses for multipurpose venues here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep: Per Eagles247. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete. That's non-defining, as none of these stadiums were built for, or are mostly known for their XFL team. I'm not sure if the present XFL is considered a continuation of the 2020 attempt or a completely new thing. Place Clichy (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

==Category:Workplace bullying==

File:Symbol move vote.svg Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 27%23Category:Workplace bullying

== Cannibals ==

:The result of the discussion was: merge as per nom. BHG's alternative proposal did not have consensus, and jc37's argument was not a strong reason to keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Brazilian cannibals‎ (2 P) to :Category:Cannibals‎

:* Propose merging :Category:Czech cannibals‎ (2 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:Egyptian cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:Fijian cannibals‎ (2 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:Italian cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:Liberian cannibals‎ (3 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:Mexican cannibals‎ (2 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:Polish cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:South African cannibals‎ (2 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:South Korean cannibals‎ (3 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:Turkish cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:Ukrainian cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:* Propose merging :Category:Venezuelan cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:Cannibals

:Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree - merge all of them. --Bduke (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Support - AFAIK new cannibals are few and far between. Oculi (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Support plus double merge to :Category:Indigenous cuisine. Laurel Lodged (talk)
!! Oculi (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

:::Interestingly, the first album of the Fine Young Cannibals was The Raw & the Cooked (album). Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as nominated, but propose ALT1:

:Merge:

:* :Category:Brazilian cannibals‎ (2 P) to :Category:South American cannibals‎

:* :Category:Czech cannibals‎ (2 P) to :Category:European cannibals

:* :Category:Egyptian cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:African cannibals

:* :Category:Fijian cannibals‎ (2 P) to :Category:Oceanian cannibals

:* :Category:Italian cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:European cannibals

:* :Category:Liberian cannibals‎ (3 P) to :Category:African cannibals

:* :Category:Mexican cannibals‎ (2 P) to :Category:North American cannibals

:* :Category:Polish cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:European cannibals

:* :Category:South African cannibals‎ (2 P) to :Category:African cannibals

:* :Category:South Korean cannibals‎ (3 P) to :Category:Asian cannibals

:* :Category:Turkish cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:European cannibals and :Category:Asian cannibals

:* :Category:Ukrainian cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:European cannibals

:* :Category:Venezuelan cannibals‎ (1 P) to :Category:South American cannibals

The by-continent groupings do have realistic potential for growth, per WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

~~If you will create the continent categories, I will support the alternative.~~ It wouldn't be fair to leave the creation of new categories to the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:@Marcocapelle: I am sorry to say that your approach here is sadly reminiscent of your approach to the emigrant and expatriate categories.
:Both here and in the other cases, the optimal merge of small by-country categories is to wider continental categories. If those targets do not exist, then they need to be created. But it is invidious to propose an overly-broad merge, and demand that a better merge be considered only if the objector does all to work.
:You are the one who has proposed upmerger, so if you want to save the closer from the sort of clerical work that I routinely did when I closed CFDs, then go ahead. But it's not my job. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:* It is not my job either. ~~Then I will leave it to the closer either to proceed with the original nomination or to create new categories.~~ Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

:::*BHG might get more buy-in if only she could be less BHG in her dealings with other editors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose ALT1 - we have been moving away from using 'African' etc for people categories, African not being a nationality. User:William Allen Simpson proposed a slew of these a few months ago. Down with the tyranny of the demonym, for continents at least. Oculi (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:If the adjectival format is problem, then use "from" instead. "Cannibals from Asia".
:But a preference for Cannibals from Asia" rather than "Asian cannibals" is no reason to remove all geography from the categries. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
While I am further thinking about it, continent isn't really a common factor here. In contrast to what one might perhaps expect, the tree does not contain a significant number of "traditional" cannibals from Africa or Oceania. In contrast, it is mostly populated criminals e.g. serial killers. That has nothing to do with continent. So oppose ALT1 too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:Countries and continents are simply the higher-level units by which en.wp categories group topics geographically.
:If we discard all geographical groupings because an activity is mostly related to populated places rather countries or continents, then we should remove vast chunks of the people-by-nationality and people-by-continent category trees. If that's really your goal, then open a WP:RFC to propose this widespread change rather than applying this novel principle to one small set of categories.
:This objection looks very like at pique at my unwillingness to be pressed into doing the clerical work. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:: In fact :Category:European people (as are the others) is a container category and people are not in general directly placed at the top level. Alt1 will result in a person being directly categorised as African, which has racial overtones. it is the merging of categories to a non-existent and bizarre continental grouping using terminology often perceived as racial that is novel. Oculi (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
::* That is a fair point too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Merge As Nominated Definitely smallcat. Since these criminals broke national laws, continental ones don't seem like they would aid navigation in this case. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose ALT1 Sorry about the double vote here. Regard it as as clarification of my Support vote above. For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to Indigenous cuisine was just one of my little jokes. Hope it didn't leave a bad taste in your mouth. Sorry for that too - just couldn't resist. Anyhoo... pique or not, Marco is actually correct; this whole tree is more akin to :Category:Serial killers which does not have a "by continent" parent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose nom. I think we need to take a look at the parent cat :Category:Cannibals, before doing this. First, I presume that we're talking about Human cannibalism, and not just merely Cannibalism. And second, categorisation seems to be a mix and muddle of criminals and non-criminals. And looking at List of incidents of cannibalism, then we also have various cultures which may have engaged in the practice in the past. This is something that, I think, needs context. Which means this should be a list (per WP:CLN#Disadvantages_of_a_category, point #2) - which it already is. So I'm leaning towards Listify/Delete all. - jc37 09:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
: {{ping|Jc37}} I wouldn't disagree with deletion (especially since most subjects are criminals) but that would require a nomination of the whole tree, in a fresh discussion. For now, while the tree as a whole is not nominated, I am assuming you are neutral about the upmerge rather than opposing it? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
::I think UpMerging is going to create even more of a muddle. And make it more difficult to listify, if that's what is eventually wanted. - jc37 17:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

----

== Category:Imperials during the end of the Han dynasty ==

:The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Imperials during the end of the Han dynasty to :Category:Imperial family during the end of the Han dynasty

:Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify the purpose of the category. I guessed it would only contain emperors but it also contains their spouses. The category is a bit of an odd duck. Alternatively we may merge it to :Category:People during the end of the Han dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rename per nom. This proposal makes sense. Just "Imperials" suggests anyone affiliated with the Imperial Liu family, soldiers of the Imperial army (much like in European history the Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire) and Army of the Holy Roman Empire are often simply called "the Imperials"), or any member of the political faction which sought to preserve Imperial unity vis-à-vis "secessionist" warlords such as Ma Teng/Han Sui and Yuan Shu. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
:Reminds me of a good joke: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7ksx6D3dlE Chinese history be like... European history be like...] Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

----

==Category:English chronicles==

File:Symbol move vote.svg Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 27%23Category:English chronicles

== Category:Polish manuscripts ==

:The result of the discussion was: Split to :Category:Works about Poland and :Category:Works about Lithuania. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Polish manuscripts}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (0 C, 2 P) + WP:NONDEFINING (not written in Polish, but Latin; they are preserved in 2 different libraries in Poland, but that's :Category:Manuscripts by collection, not "area". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

::I've added two entries, there may be more on Polish Wikipedia. I think this is a category that has potential to grow. There were notable Polish manuscripts. There is some overlap for example with :Category:Chronicles about Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

:::PS. I'll ping some users interested in medieval Polish history: User:Orczar, User:Artemis Andromeda. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

::::@Piotrus Okay, but before you do, what is your scope? Would you like to make this category about manuscripts about Poland, manuscripts written in Polish, manuscripts produced in Poland, manuscripts preserved in collections located in Poland, or something else? Because there is a risk of lumping everything that is "Polish" in all sorts of different ways together in a way that isn't very useful for categorisation. I've already made a lot of effort to make clear what was "Polish" about the "Polish chronicles", which led to it being renamed to :Category:Chronicles about Poland. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::@Nederlandse Leeuw That's a good question. Commons-category is named "Polish-language manuscripts". What is the scope of the works we have in :Category:Manuscripts by area? We also have there, for example, :Category:Czech manuscripts and :Category:French manuscripts, the latter (but not the former) under a rename discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::@Piotrus Exactly. I'm working on clarifying that. I don't know the best solution for :Category:Czech manuscripts yet, but if you'd like to take a look at my notes, this is what I've got so far:

::::::;Czech-language manuscripts

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jistebnice_hymn_book Latin, Czech, hymnal

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_Verborum Latin, Czech, dictionary, National Museum

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Dalimil Latin, Czech, chronicle

::::::

::::::;Manuscripts in collections in Prague

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jistebnice_hymn_book Latin, Czech, hymnal, National Museum

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_viaticus Latin, produced in Silesia, liturgy, National Museum

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_Verborum Latin, Czech, dictionary, National Museum

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passional_of_Abbess_Kunigunde Latin, passional, from Prague, National Library

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velislai_biblia_picta Latin, Bible, National Library

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vyssegradensis Latin, evangeliary, National Library

::::::

::::::;Manuscripts about the Czech lands

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Gigas Latin, chronicle, Bible

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelnhausen_Codex Latin, history

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronica_Boemorum Latin, chronicle

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Dalimil Latin, Czech, chronicle

::::::

::::::;Manuscripts produced in the Czech lands

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp_Bible Latin

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Gigas Latin

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vyssegradensis Latin, evangeliary, National Library

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jistebnice_hymn_book Latin, Czech, hymnal

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelnhausen_Codex Latin, history

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passional_of_Abbess_Kunigunde Latin, passional, from Prague

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velislai_biblia_picta Latin, Bible

::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenceslas_Bible German, Bible, Austrian Nat. Library

::::::I would like to have at least 5 items to create a new category, and this category should be WP:DEFINING. "Czech-language manuscripts" is my preferred option, but I've only got 3 items so far. The "Manuscripts in collections in Prague" shouldn't be thrown together (see my comment to Johnbod below about :Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge). "Manuscripts about the Czech lands" may be a good idea, but I'd like to have at least 5, and Srnec said earlier today "manuscripts about Fooland" may not be the best choice for a category. "Manuscripts produced in the Czech lands" is WP:NONDEFINING in my opinion. So you can see I don't really know how to move forward with this category right now, haha! {{wink}} Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::@Nederlandse Leeuw It is tough, and I certainly agree that Fooish manuscripts is not well defined. Your analysis above is very solid. I am pretty sure this can be applied to many countries, including Poland. Here's a Polish Wikipedia category named "Manuscripts in Poland": :pl:Kategoria:Manuskrypty w Polsce. Here's a random entry I checked that exists on en wiki but is not in the Polish manuscripts category yet: Minuscule 653. And here's more headache stuff that you've likely seen: :Category:Slavic manuscripts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::::@Piotrus Thanks, I appreciate your comments. And yes, this applies to many countries/languages, I'm looking all European chronicles / manuscripts in Europe since 26 May. I've been able to clarify, refine and reorganise a lot. But there is a lot left to do, and certain problems I have not yet solved. The :Category:Polish manuscripts could be saved, but it needs to have a good purpose. I am open to any suggestions you have. {{smiley}} Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::@Nederlandse Leeuw maybe just follow sources? If manuscript is described as "Polish" than it has rights to be here? Polish literature was written in many languages, Polish and Latin primarily, but not only. Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

::::::That doesn't solve the problem, but makes it even worse. Because now we're introducing two more possible meanings / category trees of "Polish", namely :Category:Literature by country (manuscripts written by someone living in Poland?) and :Category:Literature by nationality (manuscripts written by someone with Polish nationality). We already had to choose between :Category:Manuscripts by collection (not applicable here, this goes by institution, not country) and :Category:Manuscripts by language (not applicable to manuscripts that were written in languages other than Polish).

::::::As with "Czech manuscripts", we can't just throw all items which are somehow "Polish" in different ways together. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

:::::::PS: I'm not sure where I gave an example like this before, but suppose the following scenario:

:::::::* A writer born Austria in 1400

:::::::* Whose native language was German

:::::::* Who became a monk in the Duchies of Silesia and copied the Apocalypse of John in Latin there

:::::::* And a manuscript of this copy is currently preserved in some library in Bratislava.

:::::::What does that make this manuscript?

:::::::* "Austrian"? (Literature by nationality)

:::::::* "German"? (native language, or claiming that the Holy Roman Empire was the predecessor state of modern Germany)

:::::::* "Polish"? (Literature by country)

:::::::* "Bohemian"? (Literature by former country, namely Lands of the Bohemian Crown)

:::::::* "Czech"? (Literature by country, if we regard the Lands of the Bohemian Crown as a predecessor of the present-day Czech Republic)

:::::::* "Slovak"? (Manuscripts by collection, because it is preserved in a library in Bratislava)

:::::::To everyone's surprise, you could even argue: No, it is a "Greek" manuscript, because the contents of the manuscript were originally written in Greek on the Greek island of Patmos by John of Patmos, so really, by country/nationality/original language/etc., it was "Greek". (And even that might not settle it, because John of Patmos was probably not born on Patmos, but only banished to it from elsewhere in the Roman Empire. Due to the high frequency of semitisms in the text, his native language was probably not Greek, but Aramaic, so he may have been born in Galilee, Palestine or some other Jewish diaspora community around the Mediterranean).

:::::::In other words, these adjectives can have WAY too many different meanings to be helpful for categorisation purposes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

::::::::As I said: follow sources, it solves all your problems Marcelus (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::No. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Clarification is needed, for sure. Are there manuscripts written in Polish, other than historical documents? Perhaps not. I wouldn't object to the other cats, if large enough to escape WP:SMALLCAT. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
:There certainly are manuscripts written in Polish, but I doubt that English Wikipedia has many stand-alone articles about them. Lots of manuscripts produced in Poland were written in Latin, including the two currently in this category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Split to :Category:Works about Poland and :Category:Works about Lithuania in order to clarify the inclusion criteria. There are too few articles for a split to :Category:Manuscripts about Poland and :Category:Manuscripts about Lithuania. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:This may actually be the best option for now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

:Split per Marcocapelle, to clarify what goes here. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

----

== Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge ==

:The result of the discussion was: rename to :Category:Manuscripts held by the University of Cambridge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge to :Category:Manuscripts of the University of Cambridge

:** Alt rename :Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge to :Category:Manuscripts held by the University of Cambridge

:Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B (majority), WP:CATSPECIFIC, to indicate we're talking about the manuscript collection of the University of Cambridge.

:Incidentally, parent :Category:Manuscripts by collection shows that manuscript collections are named inconsistently:

:*'Manuscripts of the Fooian Bar' is the most common description (11X; 6 of them are libraries),

:*'Manuscripts in the Fooian Library' is also common for library collections (6x),

:*'collection(s)' is almost never used in combination with 'manuscript' (so the collection(s) in question probably preserve other items beside manuscripts, such as 'paintings' in the case of :Category:National Library of Wales collections).

: While I would prefer 'Manuscripts in the Fooian Bar collection(s)' as a rule of thumb, this seems unnecessary, impractical, and sometimes perhaps inaccurate. After all, 'of' seems to indicate ownership rather than location, and it's possible for manuscripts to be temporarily removed from their collections for expositions elsewhere. Grammatically, 'in' is fine for 'in the library', but not for 'in the university', so it also seems the wrong preposition for 'Manuscripts in the University of Cambridge'. Perhaps 'at' would be better if we wanted to indicate a university location. But 'of' to indicate ownership is probably the best option, and the easiest way to be consistent with the library catnames.

:So... should we rename the 6 'Manuscripts in the Fooian Library' cats to 'Manuscripts of the Fooian Library'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

:Alt rename rationale: per Necrothesp (and Jc37). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Not everyone will be aware that the Fitzwilliam Museum is part of the university - if I was. I'd forgotten it. We don't have other "MS by location" cats, but it wouldn't be a terrible idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
:@Johnbod Well in this case it doesn't really matter. But I'm currently trying to reorganise :Category:Czech manuscripts, and I've found out that 6 of them are preserved in Prague, but 3 in the National Library of the Czech Republic and 3 in the National Museum (Prague). They are two different, independent institutions located 1.5 kilometres from each other. Evidently, two separate collections, so it would not be a good idea to just throw these 6 items together as :Category:Manuscripts in Prague as a child of :Category:Manuscripts by collection. The point about "of/in/at" is more trivial, although for consistency's sake and because "ownership" rather than "location" seems to be meant, "of" is probably the best option. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
::Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge seems like a more natural choice of name than the alternatives offered so far, and it's mainly the placing of it within :Category:Manuscripts by collection that's proving to be a problem. Is there any reason not to have a :Category:Manuscripts by city for Cambridge, Prague and any others, just as we have :Category:Paintings by city? Dublin, London, New York and Paris have multiple collections at :Category:Manuscripts by collection. Ham II (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
::File:JRL19060215.jpg (pictured), we usually don't put manuscripts on public display, so their location is WP:NONDEFINING. More defining is who is the owner / custodian of the collection they are part of.]]
::@Ham II {{xt|Is there any reason not to have a :Category:Manuscripts by city for Cambridge, Prague and any others?}} Yes. As I said, {{xt|'of' [in 'Manuscripts of the Fooian Bar'] seems to indicate ownership rather than location, and it's possible for manuscripts to be temporarily removed from their collections for expositions elsewhere.}}
::I might add that the University of Cambridge could have a permanent secondary collection depot, archive, museum, library or gallery that is located outside of Cambridge. Suppose that for some reason, the University of Cambridge decided to acquire the Cambridgeshire Archives and Local Studies, located in Ely, Cambridgeshire, but outside the city of Cambridge itself. (Acquisitions like that can happen all the time). Any manuscripts preserved in those Archives will be {{xt|Manuscripts of the University of Cambridge}}, but not {{!xt|Manuscripts in Cambridge}}. This is the difference between ownership and location.
::* As the Prague example shows, manuscripts located in the same city aren't necessarily part of a collection or set of collections owned by the same institution/organisation (but National Library versus National Museum).
::* As my fictional Cambridge/Ely example shows, manuscripts which are part of a collection or set of collections owned by the same institution/organisation aren't necessarily located in the same city/town/village (but Cambridge versus Ely).
::For paintings, the city may be defining, because paintings are usually on public display (although many are also stored in depots instead). Manuscripts, on the other hand, are usually not on public display, except for very historically or culturally significant ones. E.g. Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is the size of a credit card, but is of great importance to Textual variants in the New Testament and therefore on public display behind lots of protective glass for visitors to gaze at. But that's the exception rather than the rule. The average visitor of a museum or library etc. usually doesn't know the value of some letters written down on a very old scrap of paper if they can't even read it, but they usually do not have to be art historians/critics to be fascinated by seeing a painting they know nothing about. I think that makes all the difference. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
::::{{re|Nederlandse Leeuw}} Cheers for the good-natured response, but much of the above is true for paintings (and other artworks in museums) as well as for manuscripts. I would have thought that paintings get lent out to exhibitions more often than manuscripts do. Paintings too can be in storage outside the city where the museum is, or in locations not disclosed to the public. It's especially likely that prints, drawings or photographs will be in storage rather than on display, because of their material fragility; in that respect they're like manuscripts. We can still refer to them as being in the museums which own them as a kind of shorthand, though, as I did in the first sentence of this paragraph.
This is the problem my earlier painting-related CfD nominations ran into; the simplest unambiguous style ("Paintings in Foo") was felt to be imprecise because locations can temporarily change, while a more precise and versatile style ("Paintings in the collection of Foo", like your "Manuscripts in the Fooian Bar collection(s)") was thought to be too wordy so there wasn't any enthusiasm for changing instances of the first into the second. We seem to have settled on "Paintings in Foo" now, despite its not always being perfectly precise.
Reading over the original nom again, I wonder whether "of" is best after all for university collections, and therefore for this particular category, simply because "in" has to be ruled out. The affected categories within {{c|Manuscripts by collection}} would be this one and {{c|Manuscripts of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge}}; once the word "library" is added, as with the category for MSS in Leiden University Library, there isn't such a problem with using "in", as you say. Ham II (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::Good points, most of which I agree with.
:::::{{xt| I would have thought that paintings get lent out to exhibitions more often than manuscripts do. Paintings too can be in storage outside the city where the museum is, or in locations not disclosed to the public.}} I agree. I think that's a good reason to prefer collection over city. You appear to agree: {{xt|We can still refer to [prints, drawings or photographs] as being in the museums which own them}}. I don't necessarily seek to rename "Paintings in Foo"), it would require a separate nomination and discussion. Suffice to say that we agree city/location/area/geography is sometimes not knowable, and probably WP:NONDEFINING.
:::::{{xt|Manuscripts of (the) Fooian Bar}} is currently the standard, which seems to best address all issues. {{xt|Manuscripts of Leiden University}} seems perfectly fine as a catname. So does {{xt|Manuscripts of the Leiden University Library}}. Libraries are the only exception to use "in", but only in half (6/12) of all cases, the other half being "of". "of" just has the most advantages as a preposition here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
:::PS: Lists such as List of Glagolitic manuscripts, List of manuscripts of Plato's dialogues, Vulgate manuscripts, Vetus Latina manuscripts, Septuagint manuscripts, List of Irish manuscripts, List of Hiberno-Saxon illuminated manuscripts, List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica, , etc. will always mention the 'custodian'/'institution'/'library' and the 'designation'/'siglum'/'Ms. catalogue no.'. But the location/city/state/country is usually not mentioned, or only as part of the place where the main building/office of the given 'custodian'/'institution'/'library' is located. Especially the 'state/country' columns are probably irrelevant, because anyone can look up in which state or country a particular city is located; it is very irrelevant for the manuscripts we're talking about. (I bear part of the blame here, as co-author of Vetus Latina manuscripts). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
:::: Manuscripts are sometimes named after the cities in which they're situated – León palimpsest, Lichfield Gospels, Codex Madrid – so those cities can't be irrelevant in all cases. Ham II (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::I'm not so sure. Manuscripts are named after cities
:::::# which they tell a story or information about
:::::# where they were purportedly written/compiled (authorship)
:::::# where they were purportedly found (provenance; e.g. Nag Hammadi Library)
:::::# where they have been preserved in the past (previous owners, e.g. Königsberg Chronicle is now in Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St Petersburg; Book of Lismore).
:::::# whose name has changed afterwards (e.g. Leningrad Codex)
:::::# where they are currently preserved
:::::So city names in manuscript article titles have all sorts of different meanings, depending on context. I don't think we can say #6 prevails over all others. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, I think we can actually; it is by far the most common. And Lismore, County Waterford (pop. 1,374) is not a city. At pop 43,000 nor is Nag Hammadi imo (not that the MS was ever there). I don't see your point re the Leningrad Codex (no, don't tell me). I notice you can't easily find examples of #1 and #2, though I'm sure some exist. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I've been intending to eventually propose a single consistent naming convention for the subcats of {{c|Manuscripts by collection}}, but my plan was to focus on other kinds of objects in museums first before moving on to manuscripts, as they can also be in libraries (the naming conventions for which have developed rather differently from those for museums). I've started (or re-started, my earlier attempts having foundered in 2021) with a CfD nomination to make all subcats {{c|Paintings by collection}} follow the style "Paintings in Foo", which is still open. My view is that the "of" in "{{c|Paintings of Versailles}}", "{{c|Photographs of the Musée d'Orsay}}", "{{c|Drawings of the Louvre}}", etc., is unsatisfactory because it suggests depictions of those places, and so for consistency's sake I'd like to avoid "of" for other kinds of objects in museums – so I much prefer the style "Manuscripts in the Fooian Library". Ham II (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
:Hah, I hadn't even considered that possibility. For manuscripts such a confusion is unlikely, but for paintings you've got a great point. "Paintings in the University of Cambridge" is probably incorrect, and "Paintings at" suggests they are just hanging there on walls for regular decoration just like plants or flowers, not as part of an artistic collection, doesn't it? "Paintings in the University of Cambridge collection" instantly clarifies the situation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately there is no "University of Cambridge collection", other than the Fitzwilliam & faculties etc. It would have to be plural, as the colleges are independent. Generally I much prefer "in" or "at" to "of", but this would be an exception, I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

::::Plural is fine by me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. I was about to say "WP:C2C per parent :Category:Culture of the University of Cambridge" until I realized this is unrelated to university culture. It should probably be re-parented directly to :Category:University of Cambridge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
:Yeah I'm not even know sure "culture" is supposed to mean here. My global history professor says "culture is everything humans make;. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

::Since :Category:Collections of the Fitzwilliam Museum is in :Category:Culture of the University of Cambridge, so should this be. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

::* Or we can move them together, which would be my preference. I understand university culture to be about university traditions, student culture etc. Collections are a very different topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

:::* I rather doubt that is the general understanding. I think most people would expect it to cover all that, plus "culture" in the sense of the arts, relating to the university. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

::::*The fact that Marco and I have difficulty understanding what "culture" is supposed to mean suggests that the name should be more specific. But perhaps a future nom should take care of that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::*Would "Culture in the University of Cambridge" ("in" replacing "of") do a better job of suggesting that the scope isn't just "university culture"? Ham II (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::*:I don't know. I do see the parent is named :Category:Traditions by university or college, but the whole tree is inconsistent with "culture" and "tradition(s)", sometimes both. I think this requires a separate nom (WP:C2C or something). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::*:* It is not about the naming, it is just odd to combine two entirely unrelated topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Qualified support. I wouldn't want this to close as no consensus when I do think that the different scope fits better inside {{c|Manuscripts by collection}}, and I've also come round to the phrasing a bit. I'm still not fully convinced that categorising manuscripts by city would be a problem, but as this is currently the only category that does that it sits awkwardly in {{c|Manuscripts by collection}}. I've been wary about using "of" rather than "in", but "University of Cambridge" seems like an exception where "in" doesn't work for manuscripts. I've been keen not to relitigate "Paintings in Foo" (the implications of which go beyond paintings to other works in museums) because we only got a single consistent style for all those categories two weeks ago. Ham II (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Manuscript collections of the University of Cambridge, per the discussions above. And looking at :Category:Manuscripts by collection, I think Manuscript collections of X (or, when appropriate, "Collections of X"), might not be a bad standard/convention for the subcats. - jc37 07:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding "collections" would be fine too, but shouldn't it be singular? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
:Well apparently, per the above, there is more than one collection at Cambridge. - jc37 17:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
:* You are right, I forgot about that part of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Manuscripts held by the University of Cambridge. :Category:Manuscript collections of the University of Cambridge is totally inaccurate and not how we generally title categories, as it implies the category is for manuscript collections. These are not, however, manuscript collections, but individual manuscripts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
:Okay. Why "held by" rather than "of"? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::Because "of" implies they were created in Cambridge or are somehow about Cambridge. It's very odd English-language usage in any case. "Held by" is the standard terminology (I can assure anyone of this, given I'm an archivist by profession). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:I'm fine with "held by". This also adresses that sometimes manuscripts and other artifacts are not "owned" by the school in question. - jc37 13:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
::@Necrothesp @Jc37 Good points. If we decide to set this precedent, would you also be in favour of consistently renaming all children of :Category:Manuscripts by collection from phrasings like {{xt|Manuscripts of the Fooian Library / Fooian University}} and {{xt|Manuscripts in the Fooian Library}} to {{xt|Manuscripts held by the Fooian Library / Fooian University}}? Some other suggestions:
::* If there is no "manuscripts" in the category name (e.g. :Category:Bodleian Library collection‎), Keep them as they are ("collection(s)" is enough if the institution in question also collects items other than manuscripts, such as paintings).
::* Rename :Category:Manuscripts of the Ambrosiana collections to :Category:Manuscripts held by the Biblioteca Ambrosiana (no need for "collections").
::* Rename :Category:Manuscripts in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution to :Category:Manuscripts held by the Smithsonian Institution (no need for "collection").
::This seems a good overall solution. Curious what you think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Tagging the other three participants @Ham II @Johnbod @Marcocapelle: Necrothesp, jc37 and I appear to be agreeing on the Alt Rename proposal of "held by" by Necrothesp (archivist by profession), which seems to solve the location and ownership issues we discussed above. What do you think of the Alt Rename proposal (and my suggestions for how this could set a precedent for correctly renaming its sibling categories)? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:::* "in the collection of" or "held by" sounds very similar to me, so I am fine with either. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:::*Anything to stop this interminable nom. But "held by" should not create a precedent for other works of art in museums, where it is not the right term. I always change it (normally to "in" per WP:VAMOS) in article text. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:::*:I believe the intent of "held by" is only for manuscripts at this point. - jc37 14:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:::*I could live with it, although it is more noticeably different from my preferred style of "X in Y" than "X of Y" is. I'm with Johnbod on not wanting this to create a precedent for other kinds of works in museums. :Category:Illuminated manuscripts by collection wasn't in :Category:Manuscripts by collection until I added it just now; I take it that the categories {{c|Illuminated manuscripts of the J. Paul Getty Museum‎}}, {{c|Illuminated manuscripts of the Louvre‎}}, {{c|Illuminated manuscripts of the Musée Condé}} and {{c|Illuminated manuscripts of the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore‎}} should also be included in the renaming drive? Ham II (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::I'd be against those. This category had special issues, extensively explored above. If we had categories for holdings of archives it might do for them, but I don't think we do. :Category:Archives seems just to contain articles on archives, not things in them. The parents of all those are "collection/s", which is fine and correct. No need for a confusing change of term just for MS. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:::*Yes, I would support "held by" as concise and accurate, although the other examples you list are also reasonable English, given they specify the collection rather than the institution, and I'm therefore not really concerned by them. It's the wording in this particular CfD that really jars. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

::Everyone seems to agree with the Alt rename option with "held by" if I'm not mistaken, so consensus has been achieved.

::There is also agreement between Johnbod and Ham II that the wording "held by" should remain limited to manuscripts, and not serve as a precedent for future renamings of "other kinds of works in museums" (such as paintings), jc37 also believes that is not the intent, and I concur with that. With that out of the way, I think we're ready to rename. Thanks everyone! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

----

== Category:Zionist terrorism ==

:The result of the discussion was: rename.

Rename :Category:Zionist terrorism to :Category:Zionist political violence
Rename :Category:Palestinian terrorism to :Category:Palestinian political violence (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Zionist terrorism to :Category:Zionist political violence

:Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming this page in line with its main article Zionist political violence, per WP:C2D and move away from contentious labelling of ups, insurgents etc. instead of the value-laden and here obviously distinct POV categorization. The separate :Category:Terrorism in Israel or :Category:Terrorism in Mandatory Palestine exists for itemized acts of political violence that are consistently described as 'terrorist' in nature in reliable sources. Proposing here per suggestions in WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_15#Category:Palestinian_terrorism Longhornsg (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest we renominate :Category:Palestinian_terrorism alongside, because they are identical cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Palestinian terrorism to :Category:Palestinian political violence

Rename both per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Rename both per WP:C2D. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Rename both per WP:C2D. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Rename both per WP:C2D. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

----

==Category:Contemplated enlargements of the European Union==

File:Symbol move vote.svg Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 27%23Category:Contemplated enlargements of the European Union

== Category:Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands navigational boxes ==

:The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands navigational boxes to :Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants in the Netherlands navigational boxes

:Nominator's rationale: For consistency with :Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants by country --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rename per WP:C2C, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Rename per WP:C2C. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

----

== Category:11th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Middle East ==

:The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|11th-century Roman Catholic bishops in the Middle East}}

:Nominator's rationale: Redundant middle layer. No other Catholic Bishops category has Middle East at this time period. It is anachronistic because nobody at that time would have called the area the "Middle East". It is a WP:Perfect category covering the only Catholic bishop in the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the two year period from 1098 to 1100. He has already been diffused to the other relevant parents. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

::Delete per nom: a WP:SMALLCAT. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

----

== Category:Poker high rollers ==

:The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Poker high rollers}}

:Nominator's rationale: A made-up criterion with an arbitrary dollar boundary. There are tournaments titled high-roller and super-high-roller (with five-, six-, even seven-digit entry fees), but there is no such set definition (certainly not $10K, as that would include every WSOP Main Event regular). The people who enter them are simply very good (or independently wealthy) players. Also, nobody in the poker world restricts this title to tournament players. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

::* Maybe not, but cash game players are often not noteworthy. (The sport discourse yields the noteworthyness). And then again, most tournaments declared high roller or super high roller have a buy-in of $25,000 up to $1,000,000. That's a fact i.e not made-up (or arbitrary). TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete another random selection of a purely subjective subject that is non-notable in itself. 2005 (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

----

== Category:Rape films ==

:The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

: Propose deleting

:* {{lc|Rape films}}

:* {{lc|Rape films by decade}}

:* {{lc|Rape thriller films by decade}}

:* {{lc|2010s rape films}}

:* {{lc|2010 rape films}}

:* {{lc|2010s rape thriller films}}

:* {{lc|2013 rape films}}

:* {{lc|2015 rape films}}

:* {{lc|1970s rape films}}

:* {{lc|1970s rape thriller films}}

:* {{lc|1978 rape films}}

:Nominator's rationale: This whole category tree is redundant to {{cl|Rape and revenge films}}, which is the established genre for the films tagged with this category. The wider genre of films about rape is already covered by {{cl|Films about rape}}, so there isn't any reason to keep this category tree. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

::*Delete per nom: redundant. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete Redundant. The user who created these seems to misunderstand how cats should work. I've recently nominated a number of this user's new cats for speedy deletion as empty cats or cats that contain only circular links of cats. Meters (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom: redundant. The items in question still appear to be in the {{cl|Rape and revenge films}}, so there is nothing to Upmerge, only to Delete. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

----

== Category:GH family ==

:The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:GH family to :Category:Glycoside hydrolase families

:Nominator's rationale: As per Glycoside hydrolase and the category's contents. Essentially WP:C2D and WP:C2A (for the pluralisation). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 01:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Strong support per nom. Panamitsu (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Rename per nom, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Rename per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

----